Get DataLens licence limit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond annotations by explaining the return shape: 'current' holds the active licence count and 'next' is null when no change is pending. This matters because there is no output schema, and the null-vs-present distinction is a behavioral detail an agent cannot infer otherwise.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core answer ('the limit in force and the one that takes over') is front-loaded. The phrase 'the one that takes over' is slightly loose prose, only clarified by the following sentence naming 'next', which costs a bit of crispness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is needed: the two returned concepts and the null semantics of 'next'. Remaining gaps are minor – whether any DataLens scope or permission is required to read the limit, and how this relates to the sibling set/list licence tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter confusion is possible with an empty, additionalProperties:false schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: 'How many licences the instance may hold' with the notion of a limit in force and its successor. Clear read operation on a well-defined DataLens resource. It does not, however, name or contrast with the obvious sibling datalens_licensing_limit_set, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The read-only framing implies usage ('fetch the current licence limit'), and the mention of 'the one that takes over' hints at the read-before-change workflow. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no reference to datalens_licensing_limit_set or datalens_licensing_licenses_list as alternatives, and no stated prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.